<p>Go back and read my post, I didn't even compare USC and UCLA at all - I was comparing USC or UCLA vs UCSD, and even then I conceded that UCSD has the edge in bio. I was comparing the overall programs, not limited to the sciences.</p>
<p>I also put "superior" in quotes because it's all subjective anyway. Maybe superior is a bad word to use, but I still think USC with thematic option honors+FSH etc is still an overall great education in most respects...</p>
<p>"Maybe superior is a bad word to use, but I still think USC with thematic option honors+FSH etc is still an overall great education in most respects..."</p>
<p>I do not disagree with the fact that USC offers a great overall education. I couldnt agree more. Small classes, good faculty, etc. But a 'superior' one is where i had problems.</p>
<p>"Is it really important for undergrads to be taught by superior academics? After all, one could argue (quite well, I'd say) that Brown, Dartmouth, and tons of LACs would provide a superior education despite their lack of research credential."</p>
<p>While USC is not Dartmouth nor Brown, nor Williams, nor Pomona, I do not feel academics necessarily make the best teachers, especially in humanities or social sciences. However in science, where cutting edge research and student opportunities often paralell the academics of the department or area, i would argue that the choice of neurosciences being located in La Jolla, where research companies are abundant, and with a top rated department located at UCSD, the choice is clear. Academically speaking this is. If you are looking at going to football games, joining a frat and getting an overall college experience, USC might then become the better choice. But deffiantly not academically in the neurosciences.</p>
<p>sorry to interrupt someone else's thread but, between UCSD and USC, which school has a higher rate of students moving on to med schools? I'm majoring in bioE premed if I go to UCSD, and biology if I go to USC. UCSD seems stronger in the aspects of science but does that mean it would also be more competitive? I know that in order to go to med school the GPA matters a lot, and as much as I want good education I'm wondering where it would be relatively 'easier' to earn a higher GPA</p>
<p>papercuts,</p>
<p>Most of those statistics are poorly collected and usually not very telling when universities are so similar in terms of academic quality. I wouldn't worry about that as much as I'd worry about fit.</p>
<p>ucchris,</p>
<p>How many "average" undergrads are going to even get to touch cutting edge research? How many of them will even get to step foot in the top research organizations? Most people couldn't care less what Salk is doing at any particular moment, and who can blame them? Undergrads aren't cutting edge scientists. They're undergrads. They don't need groundbreaking research. They need someone to explain to them how things work at the rudimentary level. This is why LACs are so great, and why even in the hard and biological sciences, kick research universities' butts in terms of PhD program placement.</p>
<p>uclari,
first of all USC is not a liberal arts university, so im not sure why we are even arguing this. Secondly, i never stated anything about large research schools being better than liberal arts schools in placement. i stated that UCSD was better in terms of academics in neurosciences than USC and also that UCSD's location offered more opportunities for neuroscience majors than does USC. if you disagree that is fine. but you would be mistaken and i believe this to be common knowledge within academia. thirdly, i personally know plenty of undergraduates at UCSD who do work in labs. hence the benefit of being located in an area such as la jolla. im not sure why you think few undergrads in the sciences at UCSD touch any sort of research as it is readily available if an individual chooses to pursue it, and i know lots of individuals who do choose to pursue it, both while in college and after graduation prior to grad school. fourthly, im not sure why you targeted me and stated in your email that the deffinition of a good education differers. i couldnt agree more. however you target me, when another poster clearly stated that USC offered a 'superior' education. then when i refute that and saythe deffinition of a good education is subjective, you target me. interesting.</p>
<p>"They're undergrads. They don't need groundbreaking research. They need someone to explain to them how things work at the rudimentary level."</p>
<p>I feel you are severely discounting undergraduates intelligence and intellect. Many upper-division neuroscience majors at top schools likely do not need things explained to them at the rudimentary level. While deffiantly not professional researchers, I think they do thirst for top level research. And an environment that can add to this is beneficial. Although if you dont feel so, we are all entitled to are own opinions. Im tired of you targeting me in this post. if you disagree with my opinions so be it. but if you state that a good education is subjective, try not to target those of us who agree with that, and target those who actually state one schools education is 'superior' to anothers.</p>
<p>Which UC school do you go to?</p>
<p>Look, I never said USC offered a superior or even comparable education to UCLA in any area. I never said that UCSD wasn't the strongest of the 3 in bio-related fields (I said precisely the opposite). I never even said that USC in general was better in anyway than UCSD - all I said was, basically, UCLA and USC general ed honors are among the top in the nation, and that was their strength over schools like UCSD.</p>
<p>So if you thought I said any of the above, then clearly you read wrong. And the reason you're being targeted is because you attacked the subjective opinion of another poster first.</p>
<p>And I might point out that none of this debate actually helps the OP, so we should get back on topic.</p>
<p>ucchris,</p>
<p>USC isn't a LAC, that's true. But then again, neither are Dartmouth and Brown.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that there isn't great opportunity at UCSD, nor am I saying that undergrads don't do research. I never said that. What I said is that most undergrads are never going to touch the best stuff. That's left to grad students and PhDs. </p>
<p>I'm not denying that UCSD is excellent. Hell, I'm here right now. What I'm saying is that research is not always the best thing for an undergrad-- even those in the sciences. USC may not offer the labs that UCSD or UCLA offer, but it may offer more students an opportunity to actually get into a lab.</p>
<p>I went to UCSD for my undergraduate studies.</p>
<p>"Look, I never said USC offered a superior or even comparable education to UCLA in any area."</p>
<p>No, you said it offered a superior education to UCSD. Here is your quote exactly:</p>
<p>"USC honors programs are going to be overall "superior" to UCSD offerings".</p>
<p>I then argued that this was incorrect.</p>
<p>You then stated that you had never stated USC was in general any better than UCSD. Although here is your quote implying that it was better in most other areas outside of sciences:</p>
<p>"I wouldn't think it (UCSD) was quite the caliber of UCLA/USC in most other respects."</p>
<p>So yes, that is exactly what you were stating.</p>
<p>"And I might point out that none of this debate actually helps the OP, so we should get back on topic."</p>
<p>I couldnt agree more. if i could get uclari to stop attacking me on random points which have nothing to do with this post, then we could move on.</p>
<p>ucchris,</p>
<p>I think that jbusc put the superior in quotes and qualified its use pretty clearly. He also made the point that it was the honors programs that were the important issue, and not necessarily the major itself.</p>
<p>uclari, that is correct. he put superior in quotes and then stated that was the only way he knew how to describe it. that is exactly my point.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that I get what your point is, then. He said:</p>
<p>
[quote]
While UCSD holds the edge in bio, UCLA and USC honors programs are going to be overall "superior" to UCSD offerings (as best that word can apply to subjective criteria). That is all.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>He's not saying that it's the God-given truth. It's a subjective issue with an opinion based on some pretty subjective issues.</p>
<p>no, before that remark, he stated:
"I wouldn't think it (UCSD) was quite the caliber of UCLA/USC in most other respects."
This is not the god given truth and I rebuked this by argueing that USC is not superior in most other areas. Hence he lumped USC and UCLA together and stated USC was stronger than UCSD is most areas. I dont believe this to be the case. Im still wondering why you failed to comment on that. i would prefer to move on with his post if you would stop targeting my posts and changing the subject to liberal arts colleges and their grad school placement.</p>
<p>Selective quotations are not always helpful...</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCSD is particularly strong in bio/biochem/biomed engineering, due to the very large bio industry in SD, but I wouldn't think it was quite the caliber of UCLA/USC in most other respects.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is not really that bad, and I don't think he really presents it as being 100% true. I didn't comment on it because it was wishy-washy and didn't seem to me to be presented as being a strong argument either way.</p>
<p>Besides, I do in some ways think that USC and UCLA offer better overall undergrad experiences, so there may be some bias creeping in.</p>
<p>but my personal opinion(what I <em>think</em>) is somewhat different from what might be more generally accepted, even if both are subjective. I'm sorry if I didn't articulate that completely, but I maintain what I said before.</p>
<p>selective quotes, come on. i did not mis-represent what he stated at all.</p>
<p>"This is not really that bad, and I don't think he really presents it as being 100% true. I didn't comment on it because it was wishy-washy and didn't seem to me to be presented as being a strong argument either way."</p>
<p>Seems pretty clear to me. Yet when i state something along the lines how their are more opportunities at UCSD in and around La Jolla for neuroscienes, you take issue with it.</p>
<p>"Besides, I do in some ways think that USC and UCLA offer better overall undergrad experiences, so there may be some bias creeping in."</p>
<p>We (jbusc and I) were talking about academics at this point in the posts, not undergraduate experiences. if you feel he was talking primarily about undergraduate experiences, not academics, read the prior posts again. The only time I or he mentioned the undergraduate experience was when i stated if you were looking at a more well rounded experience such as going to football games and joining a frat, then USC would likely be the better choice. Here was my quote:</p>
<p>"If you are looking at going to football games, joining a frat and getting an overall college experience, USC might then become the better choice."</p>
<p>Im not mad at at you jbusc and hopefully you are not mad at me. we are all entitled to are opinions and of course they are going to differ at times. its all good. i just am not amused by being targeted by uclari.</p>
<p>"USC is not exactly highly regarded academically, especially not in the sciences. And not even close to UCLA in terms of academics."</p>
<p>What did you base this comment on? Is this your opinion? I'm not a fan of the US news rankings, but USC is ahead of UCSD overall and I believe is at a level close to UCLA on the peer assessment ranking. I'll at least take that over your unsubstantiated opinion.</p>
<p>Talking about ranking in this situation is stupid. Sure, USC is one or two places higher than UCLA/UCSD with the engineering dept, UCSD ranks one or two places higher than USC/UCLA for the life science dept, and UCLA may rank one or two places higher than UCSD/USC for the overall "well-roundedness", but are these small marginal differences really that big of a deal to put so much impact into one person's decision for choosing which school out of these three to attend?</p>
<p>All three schools are excellent schools. Just because you attend a school that ranks lower than the other schools doesnt mean you are not going to learn as much materials. The critical thing is the personal preference. It takes more than department rankings to finalize one's decision. It seems the the OP loved USC more than the other two for various reasons. Each school has their own style, strength and weaknesses, and it's up to the OP himself to do the evaluation on each schools to come up with the decision.</p>
<p>All these "USC ranks higher than UCLA" type of crap arguments holds very little value in this matter.</p>
<p>I am very sure that saying academic USC is no match to UCSD/UCLA. my girlfriend is student in USC, I am student in UCSD, we major the same. But her courses are way easier than mine, even she admits that. Many USC students are rich students, they just pay to get in. They are not as strong in academic as UCSD/UCLA students. Also, USC does not have that many students, so it’s not as competitive as UCSD/UCLA. But speaking education, sometimes smaller class could get more help from instructor.</p>
<p>I had to make a UCLA vs Cal vs USC choice in premed. I decided on USC. Here’s why: first I = a premed measure–so in reality it doesn’t really matter where you go to school at (as a matter of fact if your planning on grad schools it doesn’t matter either). USC has smaller class sizes (by a lot) and you know people walking by the campus. At UCLA you are lost in a HUGE institution. Berkeley was intimidatingly smart anti-social crowd. My friend got into Cals Engineering program (currently has a 4.0) and wants to transfer to USC.
USC has a better class profile (don’t quote on exact percentage): 30% asian 40% white, 15% hispanic—UCLA is like 44 % Asian 39% white-- Also at USC you get a lot more students from out of state and out of country with a variety of life experiences (your roomate also may be Governor of Cal’s daughter so connections are awesome).
With smaller student classes and more access to professors / faculty one can do much better in class in regards to grades–more resources to do better ( + my buddy at UCLA–who hates USC because thats what all UCLA students do, haha jk (kinda)-- says that people in your class will tear up your notes and still your books to help the curve (thats unheard of at USC, if anything people help you out)
Oh yeah and 2 finish it off, Last year USC was ranked has having the #2 hottest student body out of all colleges-- So if your into REALLY hot girls, go to USC</p>
<p>In the end it doesnt matter where you go, go where you feel like you fit in more, explore all campuses and see which one gives you the best vibe. Thats what i did and i HATED USC b/c both my brothers went to UCLA–i gave USC a chance and shocked my family in my decision</p>
<ul>
<li>UC’s are so damn impersonal when you ask for help–USC was VERY helpful in all aspects of applying and orientation-- they still are very helpfull (and don’t by the BS about the campus area being unsafe–if perhaps Californias hottest girls (and guys too–not gay but it is an attractive campus) can walk around in mini skirts @ 2-3am in the morning back home and feel safe doing it, its safe. We have like 100 DPS officers + a security guard on EVERY corner and its ALL USC students in like a 5 mile square block radius outside of the school.</li>
</ul>
<p>Hope this helped</p>